Sunday, April 23, 2006
Wow! Somebody Really Gets It!
Gina Cobb hits the ball out of the park with her post explaining the difference between terrorists who intentionally target the innocent and those whose defense of the innocent is sometimes, regrettably, imperfect. It's worth a read, especially if you are inclined to think Israel's self-defense is morally equivalent to the attacks against her. While it might seem absurd that anyone should have to actually explain this, there is nevertheless a real moral myopia in the world, and the only cure is the kind of clarity Gina has provided.
Gina herself points out that the difference really does matter, because you can't solve a problem until you've clearly identified its components. Until you can tell the difference between good and evil, you don't know whom to help and whom to hinder.
I would add one more reason it matters.
The "cycle of violence" crowd may dismiss Israel's pique at Palestinian terrorism as a feeble plea for an internationally sanctioned "Victory of Victimhood" -- as if what is happening here is little more than an Israeli quest to beat the Palestinians in a game of Pity Points. Indeed, neither side should be granted assistance in this conflict just because it can create a marketing campaign establishing that its opponent is 7% meaner than itself. But the ongoing Palestinian terror really is directly relevant to the issues in dispute, namely, whether and when the Palestinians should receive a state of their own, and how that state will behave toward its neighbors and the larger world community.
So long as terrorism continues even after the negotatiated creation of the Palestinians' dream state has appeared on the horizon of the achievable, it should do nothing but undermine any confidence Israel or the world can muster that the dreamed of state will be peaceful and viable. So long as the advocates of a Palestinian state proclaim in word and deed their intention of using that negotiated state as nothing but another sovereign terrorist training camp, their dream must be deferred.
I eagerly look forward to a time when those intentions change and a more peaceful dream can come true.
If you really, really liked this -- or even really, really hated it -- there's lots more:
Gina herself points out that the difference really does matter, because you can't solve a problem until you've clearly identified its components. Until you can tell the difference between good and evil, you don't know whom to help and whom to hinder.
I would add one more reason it matters.
The "cycle of violence" crowd may dismiss Israel's pique at Palestinian terrorism as a feeble plea for an internationally sanctioned "Victory of Victimhood" -- as if what is happening here is little more than an Israeli quest to beat the Palestinians in a game of Pity Points. Indeed, neither side should be granted assistance in this conflict just because it can create a marketing campaign establishing that its opponent is 7% meaner than itself. But the ongoing Palestinian terror really is directly relevant to the issues in dispute, namely, whether and when the Palestinians should receive a state of their own, and how that state will behave toward its neighbors and the larger world community.
So long as terrorism continues even after the negotatiated creation of the Palestinians' dream state has appeared on the horizon of the achievable, it should do nothing but undermine any confidence Israel or the world can muster that the dreamed of state will be peaceful and viable. So long as the advocates of a Palestinian state proclaim in word and deed their intention of using that negotiated state as nothing but another sovereign terrorist training camp, their dream must be deferred.
I eagerly look forward to a time when those intentions change and a more peaceful dream can come true.
